Search
Search results
Star Walk 2 - Night Sky Map
Education and Reference
App
Star Walk 2 is an exquisite stargazing app enabling you to explore the night sky through the screen...
Star Walk 2 Ads+: Sky Guide
Education and Reference
App
Star Walk 2 is an exquisite stargazing app enabling you to explore the night sky through the screen...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Bone Witch (The Bone Witch, #1) in Books
May 16, 2018
The Bone Witch is set in a fantasy world comprised of eight kingdoms, each with their own distinct customs. Some of these kingdoms echo the cultures of the Middle East and others, namely Kion and the asha-ka, the home of the female magic users, are heavily influenced by Asian traditions. In fact, reading The Bone Witch was, in a way, a lot like reading Memoirs of a Geisha, only instead of preparing a girl's virginity for auction, the Houses of the asha-ka sell a much cleaner form of entertainment: performances and magic, to be specific. When they are discovered, the soon-to-be asha are taken away and trained so that they can properly use their abilities. Because of their talents, they are often respected - except for the bone witches, or Dark asha. These are the necromancers of the world that Chupeco has created.
Chupeco has spared nothing in the creation of her world, from elaborate cities and countries, to detailed garb, to the daeva, creatures of supposedly evil origin. She's even created a unique tradition among the denizens of her world, where they quite literally wear their hearts - only it is on their necks, rather than their sleeves. An individual's heartsglass reflects who and what they are, allowing potential asha and Deathseekers to begin their training early in their lives.
It is because of the daeva that bone witches are an unwanted necessity among the eight kingdoms, and it is by accident that we are introduced to Tea, a young girl who, after learning of her older brother's death, becomes so distraught that she accidentally raises him from his grave. From there, we follow Tea's journey to becoming a full-fledged asha, and while the story does have a bit of a lull in its center where nothing happens (I would have put it down if it weren't for the fact that I tend to do my best to finish advance copies), the ending picks up and twists in ways that are surprising. In fact, I found myself completely surprised by not one, but two of the revelations the reader encounters near the end of the book.
The Bone Witch switches between two perspectives in each chapter, with the first portion, the "flashback" for lack of a better word, told from Tea's perspective. At the end of each chapter, in italics, is a few short passages told from the perspective of a bard that has been exiled from his homeland. The italics take place in present day and hint at something much, much larger arriving in the near future while introducing the reader to the young woman that Tea has become.
There does seem to be lack of depth to many of the characters. Tea's brother, Fox, after he is risen from the grave, appears to lack personality. His only drive seems to be protecting his sister, though it is alluded to that in the future, we may see a lot of development to his character (or so I hope). Aside from those asha that belong to House Valerian, only a few of the characters seem to have truly dynamic characteristics.
In regards to that "lull" in the book, I must admit that it is nearly impossible to get through - especially if the reader has a short attention span. Too much time is spent on details that appear to be largely unimportant to the story - such as the fine tuning of Tea's training. Also, while the descriptions of the hua, the garb worn by the asha, are beautifully written, they are a bit too detailed. I could do with a bit less exposition in that regard.
Needless to say, it is going to be a long wait for the next book, and I can't wait for it - those last few chapters really made a difference. Thanks to NetGalley, the publisher, and Rin Chupeco for providing me with an advance copy of the book in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.
Chupeco has spared nothing in the creation of her world, from elaborate cities and countries, to detailed garb, to the daeva, creatures of supposedly evil origin. She's even created a unique tradition among the denizens of her world, where they quite literally wear their hearts - only it is on their necks, rather than their sleeves. An individual's heartsglass reflects who and what they are, allowing potential asha and Deathseekers to begin their training early in their lives.
It is because of the daeva that bone witches are an unwanted necessity among the eight kingdoms, and it is by accident that we are introduced to Tea, a young girl who, after learning of her older brother's death, becomes so distraught that she accidentally raises him from his grave. From there, we follow Tea's journey to becoming a full-fledged asha, and while the story does have a bit of a lull in its center where nothing happens (I would have put it down if it weren't for the fact that I tend to do my best to finish advance copies), the ending picks up and twists in ways that are surprising. In fact, I found myself completely surprised by not one, but two of the revelations the reader encounters near the end of the book.
The Bone Witch switches between two perspectives in each chapter, with the first portion, the "flashback" for lack of a better word, told from Tea's perspective. At the end of each chapter, in italics, is a few short passages told from the perspective of a bard that has been exiled from his homeland. The italics take place in present day and hint at something much, much larger arriving in the near future while introducing the reader to the young woman that Tea has become.
There does seem to be lack of depth to many of the characters. Tea's brother, Fox, after he is risen from the grave, appears to lack personality. His only drive seems to be protecting his sister, though it is alluded to that in the future, we may see a lot of development to his character (or so I hope). Aside from those asha that belong to House Valerian, only a few of the characters seem to have truly dynamic characteristics.
In regards to that "lull" in the book, I must admit that it is nearly impossible to get through - especially if the reader has a short attention span. Too much time is spent on details that appear to be largely unimportant to the story - such as the fine tuning of Tea's training. Also, while the descriptions of the hua, the garb worn by the asha, are beautifully written, they are a bit too detailed. I could do with a bit less exposition in that regard.
Needless to say, it is going to be a long wait for the next book, and I can't wait for it - those last few chapters really made a difference. Thanks to NetGalley, the publisher, and Rin Chupeco for providing me with an advance copy of the book in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 24, 2019 (Updated Jun 24, 2019)
I really can't believe it's been 9 years since Toy Story 3! It's even more unbelievable to think that the first Toy Story came out in 1995, meaning these beloved characters have now been with us for nearly a quarter of a century! I don't think anybody really expected, or even thought we needed, yet another sequel to these movies, as Toy Story 3 seemed to give us a natural, and highly emotional conclusion to the series. And yet here we are with number 4. Interestingly, I felt the trailers for this Toy Story didn't really highlight anything new and exciting for the series, possibly only existing as a bit of a cash grab. Thankfully, there's a lot here that's new and exciting, and I'm sure it will make a tonne of money too!
Toy Story 4 begins by taking us back 9 years, to a scene which helps to explain the absence of Bo Peep from the last movie, before bringing us back to present day. The gang are all right where we left them, living with Bonnie and being played with regularly. Although, worryingly for Woody, he seems to be getting left behind in Bonnie's wardrobe on a more regular basis during the play sessions. Overlooked in favour of the other toys and, worse still, even having his sheriff badge removed and placed on Jessie!
Woody still feels a duty of care towards Bonnie though, so when a taster day at kindergarten arrives, Woody decides to accompany a very nervous Bonnie for the day, stowing away in her backpack. We then get to relive what all of us have been through at some point during our younger years - going somewhere new and feeling very alone, scared, out of your comfort zone and thinking that everyone dislikes you. Woody does his best to try and make the day more bearable for Bonnie, without being seen of course, throwing discarded craft items from the bin so that she has something to work with during craft time.
Back in Bonnie's room later on, Woody reveals to the rest of the toys the result of Bonnie's crafting session - a spork with googly eyes, pipe-cleaner arms and a broken ice lolly stick for feet. His name is Forky and, having effectively just been 'born', Forky struggles to understand who he is, what he is or why he is. He's also constantly drawn to trash bins, as that's where he came from. As Bonnie's new favourite toy, Woody takes on the role of guardian, repeatedly removing Forky from the bins and ensuring that he's never out of Bonnie's sight in what is a very funny 15 minutes or so. So when Bonnie and her parents head out on a road trip with all the toys, and Forky leaps from the back of the RV, it's up to Woody to go find him and bring him back to Bonnie before she notices.
The journey back to Bonnie isn't quite that straightforward though. Side plots involving an antique store and a fairground provide lots of opportunities for drama and humour and also introduce us to some great new characters. But, Toy Story 4 is primarily about Woody and his journey of self discovery. He learns about what it means to be a toy and his experiences throughout the movie give him an insight into the very different lives that the toys he encounters have all experienced. What it's like to be without a child, whether you desperately want to be with one or aren't really bothered. The only downside of all of this is that the rest of our core team of characters from the original movies are pretty much sidelined, serving only to remain together back in Bonnie's room or the RV while they wait for word back on whether or not Woody is OK. Buzz does get a bit more involved in things than the others do, but seems to have reverted to being slightly dumb in a way that we haven't seen since the first movie.
But these are all very minor negatives. Toy Story 4 is very funny, with much of that humour stemming from the new characters, particularly stunt-rider Duke Caboom and fairground fluffy toys Ducky and Bunny. It's definitely not as sad as Toy Story 3 was, but it does manage to be pretty emotional at times as it tugs at the heartstrings and makes you think a little bit deeper about life, death and creation. After nearly 25 years though, it's incredible that these characters still manage to deliver such satisfyingly enjoyable movies. And if this really is the end of Toy Story movies, it's a great way to end the series.
Toy Story 4 begins by taking us back 9 years, to a scene which helps to explain the absence of Bo Peep from the last movie, before bringing us back to present day. The gang are all right where we left them, living with Bonnie and being played with regularly. Although, worryingly for Woody, he seems to be getting left behind in Bonnie's wardrobe on a more regular basis during the play sessions. Overlooked in favour of the other toys and, worse still, even having his sheriff badge removed and placed on Jessie!
Woody still feels a duty of care towards Bonnie though, so when a taster day at kindergarten arrives, Woody decides to accompany a very nervous Bonnie for the day, stowing away in her backpack. We then get to relive what all of us have been through at some point during our younger years - going somewhere new and feeling very alone, scared, out of your comfort zone and thinking that everyone dislikes you. Woody does his best to try and make the day more bearable for Bonnie, without being seen of course, throwing discarded craft items from the bin so that she has something to work with during craft time.
Back in Bonnie's room later on, Woody reveals to the rest of the toys the result of Bonnie's crafting session - a spork with googly eyes, pipe-cleaner arms and a broken ice lolly stick for feet. His name is Forky and, having effectively just been 'born', Forky struggles to understand who he is, what he is or why he is. He's also constantly drawn to trash bins, as that's where he came from. As Bonnie's new favourite toy, Woody takes on the role of guardian, repeatedly removing Forky from the bins and ensuring that he's never out of Bonnie's sight in what is a very funny 15 minutes or so. So when Bonnie and her parents head out on a road trip with all the toys, and Forky leaps from the back of the RV, it's up to Woody to go find him and bring him back to Bonnie before she notices.
The journey back to Bonnie isn't quite that straightforward though. Side plots involving an antique store and a fairground provide lots of opportunities for drama and humour and also introduce us to some great new characters. But, Toy Story 4 is primarily about Woody and his journey of self discovery. He learns about what it means to be a toy and his experiences throughout the movie give him an insight into the very different lives that the toys he encounters have all experienced. What it's like to be without a child, whether you desperately want to be with one or aren't really bothered. The only downside of all of this is that the rest of our core team of characters from the original movies are pretty much sidelined, serving only to remain together back in Bonnie's room or the RV while they wait for word back on whether or not Woody is OK. Buzz does get a bit more involved in things than the others do, but seems to have reverted to being slightly dumb in a way that we haven't seen since the first movie.
But these are all very minor negatives. Toy Story 4 is very funny, with much of that humour stemming from the new characters, particularly stunt-rider Duke Caboom and fairground fluffy toys Ducky and Bunny. It's definitely not as sad as Toy Story 3 was, but it does manage to be pretty emotional at times as it tugs at the heartstrings and makes you think a little bit deeper about life, death and creation. After nearly 25 years though, it's incredible that these characters still manage to deliver such satisfyingly enjoyable movies. And if this really is the end of Toy Story movies, it's a great way to end the series.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Dark Souls Remastered in Video Games
Aug 14, 2019
I admit it, I never was able to beat the original Dark Souls when it was released on Xbox 360 and PS3 back in 2011. A PC port of the game was also released but had limited 30FPS and clearly hadn’t taken mouse and keyboard controls into account. The game was difficult, but I’m the type of player who’s happy to replay an area on a level multiple times, however if I get to a point where I don’t feel like I’m making progress, it’s usually on to the next game for me. That being said, I do love the Dark Souls games, regardless of how difficult they are and how horrible I am at them. I love the atmosphere, I love the weight of your armor and weapons, I love the scenery, and at times I even love the challenge. This isn’t a review specifically about Dark Souls however, as the gameplay hasn’t changed at all from the original (DLC’s included of course), but rather a review of whether the remastered version is the definitive version that folks should play.
For those of you who have led a sheltered life, Dark Souls is a third-person action role-playing game developed by FromSoftware. It was the successor to their previous game Demon Souls (which was a PS3 exclusive) and carried over much of the game mechanics. The game takes place in what I call a semi-open world environment connected to a central area. You are free to travel to and from areas at will, although some areas will be inaccessible until you complete specific tasks. Bonfires act as checkpoints for each level, and at a bonfire the player can heal, refill their healing flasks, and level up if they have collected enough souls to do so. The downside to resting at a bonfire is that it resets the enemies, so areas that you worked hard to clear out must be cleared out again. The game is lauded for its difficulty, and for players to learn from previous mistakes to overcome obstacles, present company excluded of course.
The release of Dark Souls Remastered was an effort to address many of the shortcomings of the original from a purely control and aesthetic point of view. I was lucky enough to review the game on my Xbox One X and the new 4K visuals and lighting effects are truly a site to behold. The world while still dark and dreary, now boasted cleaner lines. While it’s difficult to describe how good it looks (there are plenty of websites dedicated to comparing pictures between the original HD version and the new 4K version) it is absolutely noticeable. The textures no longer look muddy, and the creatures almost pop off the screen. This IS the definitive version if you are looking for the absolute best console version of the original Dark Souls game out there.
While folks may balk at the need for 60FPS on a game that was clearly playable at 30FPS, it does make a noticeable difference. Your character responds more fluidly and there is never any perceivable stutter. When a game’s FPS drops below 30FPS as it did in various areas of the original, it can have a horrible affect on the player and lead to some unnecessary deaths. While many will argue about the ability to distinguish between 60FPS and 30FPS, there is no denying that consistent frame rates in this game can literally mean the difference between life and death. This is not an issue with the remastered version as there were not discernable drops in FPS in even the most crowded of areas.
This leads to what you are probably reading this review for…is it worth the price of admission? If you have never played Dark Souls before, then this is absolutely the version you should purchase. Not only are the FPS and visuals greatly improved, but it includes all the DLC from the previous version as well. If you have played it before but are interested in going through it again, then I certainly would play through this version as the graphics and frame rates make it well worth your time. If you have no desire to replay the game, or if it didn’t appeal to you the first time around, then there is little reason to pick it up. While there are notable visual improvements, there is no additional content (outside the DLC) or any changes to the game mechanics themselves to warrant a replay.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this review the original version came out in 2011 and I’ve had seven years of playing numerous other games under my belt to go back and best the enemies that lie within. So, with the much-improved graphics and smoother gameplay was I able to beat Dark Souls this time??? Well sadly no, apparently I still haven’t improved enough over the years to beat this game (and while I have Dark Souls II and Dark Souls III, I haven’t beaten those game either). I was able to play through most of the levels to see how the visuals had improved, but the same bosses still took no pity on me. Maybe another seven years of practice will make all the difference, until then maybe I’ll go back for one more try.
Pros: Smooth 60FPS, Incredible 4K visuals, Smoother game control
Cons: Still too tough for me, Lacking additional content
For those of you who have led a sheltered life, Dark Souls is a third-person action role-playing game developed by FromSoftware. It was the successor to their previous game Demon Souls (which was a PS3 exclusive) and carried over much of the game mechanics. The game takes place in what I call a semi-open world environment connected to a central area. You are free to travel to and from areas at will, although some areas will be inaccessible until you complete specific tasks. Bonfires act as checkpoints for each level, and at a bonfire the player can heal, refill their healing flasks, and level up if they have collected enough souls to do so. The downside to resting at a bonfire is that it resets the enemies, so areas that you worked hard to clear out must be cleared out again. The game is lauded for its difficulty, and for players to learn from previous mistakes to overcome obstacles, present company excluded of course.
The release of Dark Souls Remastered was an effort to address many of the shortcomings of the original from a purely control and aesthetic point of view. I was lucky enough to review the game on my Xbox One X and the new 4K visuals and lighting effects are truly a site to behold. The world while still dark and dreary, now boasted cleaner lines. While it’s difficult to describe how good it looks (there are plenty of websites dedicated to comparing pictures between the original HD version and the new 4K version) it is absolutely noticeable. The textures no longer look muddy, and the creatures almost pop off the screen. This IS the definitive version if you are looking for the absolute best console version of the original Dark Souls game out there.
While folks may balk at the need for 60FPS on a game that was clearly playable at 30FPS, it does make a noticeable difference. Your character responds more fluidly and there is never any perceivable stutter. When a game’s FPS drops below 30FPS as it did in various areas of the original, it can have a horrible affect on the player and lead to some unnecessary deaths. While many will argue about the ability to distinguish between 60FPS and 30FPS, there is no denying that consistent frame rates in this game can literally mean the difference between life and death. This is not an issue with the remastered version as there were not discernable drops in FPS in even the most crowded of areas.
This leads to what you are probably reading this review for…is it worth the price of admission? If you have never played Dark Souls before, then this is absolutely the version you should purchase. Not only are the FPS and visuals greatly improved, but it includes all the DLC from the previous version as well. If you have played it before but are interested in going through it again, then I certainly would play through this version as the graphics and frame rates make it well worth your time. If you have no desire to replay the game, or if it didn’t appeal to you the first time around, then there is little reason to pick it up. While there are notable visual improvements, there is no additional content (outside the DLC) or any changes to the game mechanics themselves to warrant a replay.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this review the original version came out in 2011 and I’ve had seven years of playing numerous other games under my belt to go back and best the enemies that lie within. So, with the much-improved graphics and smoother gameplay was I able to beat Dark Souls this time??? Well sadly no, apparently I still haven’t improved enough over the years to beat this game (and while I have Dark Souls II and Dark Souls III, I haven’t beaten those game either). I was able to play through most of the levels to see how the visuals had improved, but the same bosses still took no pity on me. Maybe another seven years of practice will make all the difference, until then maybe I’ll go back for one more try.
Pros: Smooth 60FPS, Incredible 4K visuals, Smoother game control
Cons: Still too tough for me, Lacking additional content
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Naomi Forrest (42 KP) rated The Toy Makers in Books
Jan 2, 2019
The first thing on the very first page that I loved was the narrator setting the scene and talking directly to you:
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Daring Dustbunnies in Tabletop Games
Mar 3, 2021
I have never once entertained the thought that every time I run the vacuum cleaner I may be sucking up fluffballs that are psychically linked to magical beings. Why have I never thought of this before learning of this game’s existence? What kind of egocentric human am I?? Well no more! I now care about each pile of dust accumulating under my couches and will strive to keep them there as long as I can. Or at least as long as my wife allows.
Daring Dustbunnies is a card-driven racing game for two to five players. In it players assume the roles of mystical rabbits whose fate is linked to colored fluffballs attempting to get close to the vacuum without being sucked up into it. Through timely card play the mystical hares can eke out a win or suffer the ultimate fate of being sucked into the evil Hoover (not a sponsor) of death.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. Like what you read? You may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the Start tile and Vacuum tile on the table with room tiles between depending on the number of players. The gold, silver, and bronze medals, all six fluffballeeples, cat, and dog tokens will be placed on or near the modular board. Each player will be dealt two character cards, choosing one to represent themselves and the other to be flipped as a resource and Fate token organizer. Fate tokens are dealt to each player. The players will look at the Fate cards and then place them face-down on their inactive character tile. Each player receives one Wire token, three starting Static tokens, and four Move cards. The remaining Move cards and Charms cards are to be shuffled and set in decks near the board. The player who last used a vacuum will be the starting player and the game may begin!
On a turn the active player will choose one of their Move cards to play and resolve. Move cards typically show a numeric value and color of fluffball to be moved. Should the player throw a 1 of Pink, then the pink fluffballeeple is moved one space closer to the vacuum tile. If there are no other fluffballs on this space the player will perform the space’s special action. This could include playing an extra Move card, flipping the top Move card and resolving, dumping a Move card from hand, taking or giving a Move card from hand from/to another player, or moving another fluffball one space forward. If a fluffball lands on a space containing another fluffball the moving fluff instead receives a number of Static tokens equal to the number of other fluffballs on the space.
Some Move cards do not move fluffballs. Instead they may activate the Cat or Dog, which forces fluffballs either toward the vacuum or away from it, respectively (darn cats). Some cards are Talismans which force the active player to reveal their Fate card for the remainder of the round. This is important because maneuvering fluffballs in order to keep their own Fated fluff free from the vacuum is a perilous task for the player. Once their Fate token is revealed other players may then focus Move on that color fluff in order to knock out its player for the round.
Once a fluffball approaches the vacuum tile and is forced to move into it, the fluffball stops at the Tube of Destiny. Within this tube fluffballs are able to be saved with savvy cardplay, but one more Move card played matching the fluffball’s color is a death sentence to to the Bag of Beyond. Fluffballs in the Bag may not be saved by any means.
Ways a fluffball can be saved from the Tube are by Charm cards, Wire tokens, and character special abilities (possibly). Charm cards may be played before or after a Move card has been played on any turn. They are powered by Static tokens (game currency) and can offer a multitude of special powers. Wire tokens are provided at game setup and can move a fluffball backwards (away from the vacuum) for a cost of ALL the player’s Static. All characters will have special abilities printed on their character tiles, and are able to be used once per round. As each game lasts three rounds, these are very powerful.
Play continues with each player taking turns playing their cards, using Charms and special abilities, and refilling their hand of cards once all cards in hand have been played until all end of round conditions are met. The fluffball closest to the vacuum without being inside it is awarded a Gold medal, the next closest the Silver, and next closest the Bronze. At the end of three rounds players compare numbers of medals won and determine the winner!
Components. I want to start by saying I absolutely adore the theme and art style of this game. How quirky and wonderful is this theme? And it is so colorful and stinking cute! I just smile a giddy smile every time I play this because I am just having so much fun getting into the theme and using the components. That said, this game uses a lot of different components and the quality is very very good across the board. The only real minor quibble I have is the design of the Static tokens. They are supposed to be placed below the Fate token on the backside of the character tile, but that area of the tile coupled with the busy Static token design sometimes causes my eyes to go a little funny. It’s very busy-on-busy. If only one item was busy and the other a little more plain I would be completely happy with the components.
The gameplay is very unique and enjoyable. Yes, I know several games that use cardplay to move tokens along a race track. But usually in games like that the goal is to be the first across the finish line. Here the player wants their linked fluffball to be closest to the finish line without actually passing it. This little twist is something I very much appreciate and causes players to adopt different strategies than one might normally utilize.
The different special powers of the characters and Charms cards are also aspects that help raise this game’s favor. Add in the abilities of the Cat and Dog and now there are so many options for players to choose as they play the game. I know Andy Hopwood, designer, takes pride in his ability to offer games with familiar playability but with a twist. Daring Dustbunnies is no different, but is also quite a bit different than what I was expecting.
I happen to very much love this game. My 4-year-old son and I also play a watered-down version of the game without the special powers and Charms (because he can’t read yet), and he absolutely adores it. In fact, my boy enjoys just carrying the vacuum tile around the house as he would a treasured stuffie. If THAT doesn’t say “great game,” I don’t know what does.
Wait, yes I do know what does. I can say it. Daring Dustbunnies is a great game! As I am learning more about Andy Hopwood’s games I am starting to appreciate the wonderful designs and this one is one of his best, in my opinion. If you are looking for a cute and excellent game with an inventive theme and familiar gameplay, but with a twist, then you need to look into Daring Dustbunnies. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a frantically Fated 16 / 18. Play it with your littles. Play it with your significant other(s). Play it with family and friends. I have a feeling all will enjoy it.
Daring Dustbunnies is a card-driven racing game for two to five players. In it players assume the roles of mystical rabbits whose fate is linked to colored fluffballs attempting to get close to the vacuum without being sucked up into it. Through timely card play the mystical hares can eke out a win or suffer the ultimate fate of being sucked into the evil Hoover (not a sponsor) of death.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. Like what you read? You may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the Start tile and Vacuum tile on the table with room tiles between depending on the number of players. The gold, silver, and bronze medals, all six fluffballeeples, cat, and dog tokens will be placed on or near the modular board. Each player will be dealt two character cards, choosing one to represent themselves and the other to be flipped as a resource and Fate token organizer. Fate tokens are dealt to each player. The players will look at the Fate cards and then place them face-down on their inactive character tile. Each player receives one Wire token, three starting Static tokens, and four Move cards. The remaining Move cards and Charms cards are to be shuffled and set in decks near the board. The player who last used a vacuum will be the starting player and the game may begin!
On a turn the active player will choose one of their Move cards to play and resolve. Move cards typically show a numeric value and color of fluffball to be moved. Should the player throw a 1 of Pink, then the pink fluffballeeple is moved one space closer to the vacuum tile. If there are no other fluffballs on this space the player will perform the space’s special action. This could include playing an extra Move card, flipping the top Move card and resolving, dumping a Move card from hand, taking or giving a Move card from hand from/to another player, or moving another fluffball one space forward. If a fluffball lands on a space containing another fluffball the moving fluff instead receives a number of Static tokens equal to the number of other fluffballs on the space.
Some Move cards do not move fluffballs. Instead they may activate the Cat or Dog, which forces fluffballs either toward the vacuum or away from it, respectively (darn cats). Some cards are Talismans which force the active player to reveal their Fate card for the remainder of the round. This is important because maneuvering fluffballs in order to keep their own Fated fluff free from the vacuum is a perilous task for the player. Once their Fate token is revealed other players may then focus Move on that color fluff in order to knock out its player for the round.
Once a fluffball approaches the vacuum tile and is forced to move into it, the fluffball stops at the Tube of Destiny. Within this tube fluffballs are able to be saved with savvy cardplay, but one more Move card played matching the fluffball’s color is a death sentence to to the Bag of Beyond. Fluffballs in the Bag may not be saved by any means.
Ways a fluffball can be saved from the Tube are by Charm cards, Wire tokens, and character special abilities (possibly). Charm cards may be played before or after a Move card has been played on any turn. They are powered by Static tokens (game currency) and can offer a multitude of special powers. Wire tokens are provided at game setup and can move a fluffball backwards (away from the vacuum) for a cost of ALL the player’s Static. All characters will have special abilities printed on their character tiles, and are able to be used once per round. As each game lasts three rounds, these are very powerful.
Play continues with each player taking turns playing their cards, using Charms and special abilities, and refilling their hand of cards once all cards in hand have been played until all end of round conditions are met. The fluffball closest to the vacuum without being inside it is awarded a Gold medal, the next closest the Silver, and next closest the Bronze. At the end of three rounds players compare numbers of medals won and determine the winner!
Components. I want to start by saying I absolutely adore the theme and art style of this game. How quirky and wonderful is this theme? And it is so colorful and stinking cute! I just smile a giddy smile every time I play this because I am just having so much fun getting into the theme and using the components. That said, this game uses a lot of different components and the quality is very very good across the board. The only real minor quibble I have is the design of the Static tokens. They are supposed to be placed below the Fate token on the backside of the character tile, but that area of the tile coupled with the busy Static token design sometimes causes my eyes to go a little funny. It’s very busy-on-busy. If only one item was busy and the other a little more plain I would be completely happy with the components.
The gameplay is very unique and enjoyable. Yes, I know several games that use cardplay to move tokens along a race track. But usually in games like that the goal is to be the first across the finish line. Here the player wants their linked fluffball to be closest to the finish line without actually passing it. This little twist is something I very much appreciate and causes players to adopt different strategies than one might normally utilize.
The different special powers of the characters and Charms cards are also aspects that help raise this game’s favor. Add in the abilities of the Cat and Dog and now there are so many options for players to choose as they play the game. I know Andy Hopwood, designer, takes pride in his ability to offer games with familiar playability but with a twist. Daring Dustbunnies is no different, but is also quite a bit different than what I was expecting.
I happen to very much love this game. My 4-year-old son and I also play a watered-down version of the game without the special powers and Charms (because he can’t read yet), and he absolutely adores it. In fact, my boy enjoys just carrying the vacuum tile around the house as he would a treasured stuffie. If THAT doesn’t say “great game,” I don’t know what does.
Wait, yes I do know what does. I can say it. Daring Dustbunnies is a great game! As I am learning more about Andy Hopwood’s games I am starting to appreciate the wonderful designs and this one is one of his best, in my opinion. If you are looking for a cute and excellent game with an inventive theme and familiar gameplay, but with a twist, then you need to look into Daring Dustbunnies. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a frantically Fated 16 / 18. Play it with your littles. Play it with your significant other(s). Play it with family and friends. I have a feeling all will enjoy it.
